SOARES: Gun laws punish law-abiding gun owners

Saturday

Jun 21, 2014 at 11:58 PMJun 22, 2014 at 12:08 AM

One of the first objectives of the British military in their campaign to repress the colonists’ pursuit of freedom was to capture the powder magazines, then begin the process of methodically confiscating the arms of the independence-loving people we now refer to as patriots and founding fathers.

Charley SoaresColumnist

One of the first objectives of the British military in their campaign to repress the colonists’ pursuit of freedom was to capture the powder magazines, then begin the process of methodically confiscating the arms of the independence-loving people we now refer to as patriots and founding fathers.

Over the course of recent history, it has been Germany, Russia and Japan that either confiscated or made the possession of firearms almost impossible in order to gain control over the populace. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, ”When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny.”

The state of Massachusetts has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country, yet there are politicians who believe they are not restrictive enough. Those same pols would do well to research the laws we have on the books, then work to ensure that all the regulations we already have are fully applied to all violations. But why would we want to do that? We don’t enforce our immigration laws by choice, and unlike Mexico, where there is harsh and abusive treatment of Americans who cross their borders, we allow illegals to enter the country and reward them with welfare, housing and medical care.

The problem with most gun laws is they unfairly target law-abiding citizens. When was the last time you heard of a criminal trying to register a stolen firearm? Burglars, rapists, muggers and gang members don’t buy weapons in gun stores or from licensed dealers — they steal them. Do you believe that our state’s ban on magazines (clips) that hold more than 10 rounds deters criminals from using any of those tens of thousands of high-capacity magazines that are in circulation? Absolutely not! Few informed citizens would dispute that Chicago has some of the most stringent of gun laws in the nation, but the murder rate in that city far exceeds the combat deaths of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Gun laws don’t mean a thing unless they are enforced, and many liberal judges and politicians are reluctant to impose the one-year mandatory sentence for gun possession violations.

The fact is, the current laws do not prevent criminals, assassins or the insane from obtaining and using illegal guns, but they do target the legitimate and law-abiding citizens who follow all the rules. Can you imagine the criminals and gang bangers who use firearms to fight for territory and collections going to the local police chief for a permit? Can you imagine them filling out a form and listing all the weapons they have in their possession? I wonder if the people who propose these punitive legislative fixes ride public transportation in high-crime urban areas or walk darkened city streets without protection. I doubt it.

When I was a boy, we walked the railroad tracks and city streets to and from school or to the Fall River business district. It was nothing for us to play ball at North or South Park until well after sunset, then run down Broadway, pick up the train tracks and run in the dark all the way home. We weren’t worried about criminals or child molesters, and the worst we ever ran into was a hobo. Yup, we had a few tramps that rode the trains and made camp in the field in front of the Gold Medal Bakery when it was located off Lindsey Street. There they drank rubbing alcohol and ate stale bread by the loaf. That is not the world we live in today.

Lawfully licensed citizens use firearms to save lives and protect property every single day without firing a single shot, but you won’t hear about that from the liberal media. Many years ago, my wife and I celebrated our wedding anniversary by spending a day in the city of Boston. We parked in the commuter lot in Braintree and rode in on the train. On the way in, the passengers were largely well-dressed and well-mannered. We enjoyed a full day of sightseeing and after a late dinner, we walked back to the station after sunset. When we arrived at the train, there was a group of rowdy young men raising hell on the platform near a terrified elderly woman, who was standing on the very precipice of the platform trying to ignore them. She was so close to the edge that I cautiously approached her and when she saw my wife and me, her face beamed. The rowdies were acting up and one of them loudly asked another if he had seen his blade. This was the first time I actually turned and acknowledged their presence, at which time the knife holder was snapping the blade on either a large switchblade or assisted-blade knife. It was a blatant act of intimidation and I knew the longer it continued, the more trouble we would be in. The woman whispered to my wife that we were in danger. This was long before cellphones and instant messaging, so until the train arrived, hopefully with an assertive conductor, we were on our own. At time I was a private detective and claims investigator working for numerous insurance companies in the Northeast, and during that time I worked on or provided oral and written testimony on numerous criminal investigations.

Because of the hazards of surveillance and threats from the offenders I testified against, I carried a legal firearm in the three states I worked in. I take the safety and security of my family very seriously and on this day we all knew we were in harm’s way. There is a law against brandishing a weapon; it is one I am well aware of. On that ominous warm summer night I had the option of having to defend our group against what was an obvious and active physical threat from a group of men who were either drunk, high or a combination of both or try to mitigate it. They began to make a move while I was in the process of making a difficult decision. I began to move forward to confront them when my wife grabbed me by the sleeve, pulling my sport jacket open and revealing a government model 45 handgun in my shoulder holster.

When I turned away from my wife and looked back toward the gang, their eyes were fixated on my shoulder holster and the taunts and bad behavior ended abruptly. They skulked off to the opposite corner of the platform and remained there until the train pulled in. We sat on one side of the car with them at the far end, and not a single threat was uttered during the entire ride. The woman who was forced to work late and miss her early train was so grateful, she offered to purchase us a restaurant gift certificate, which we politely declined. There is no doubt in my mind that what a police officer friend referred to as an opportune wardrobe malfunction defused a dangerous situation, and I thank God that I was granted the permits to carry that firearm, which over a 21-year period saved me from serious harm, or far worse on several other occasions.

There is a proposed Massachusetts bill (H 4121) going to hearing this month that would further erode the freedoms granted to law abiding residents of the commonwealth under the Second Amendment. Please call your state representatives and senators (Rep. Patricia Haddad and Sen. Michael Rodrigues in my district), and tell them that these proposals only serve to punish law-abiding citizens and not the criminals who have a total disregard for all of our laws.

When the citizenry stand together, we win, which reminds of me of the perceptive quotation from Protestant pastor Martin Niemoller about the rise of Nazi Germany: “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.” In the words of author Ayn Rand, “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority. The political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression and the smallest minority on earth is the individual.”